Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO

264 ITR 276High Court2003#1547 most cited

What is Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

An Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot make a 'U-turn' in their assessment unless the revenue brings contrary facts on record.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO · rule of consistency · Assessing Officer · U-turn · contrary facts · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 11Section 12AASection 12AA(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 35acpreliminary expensesfirst proviso to section 147section 151(1)infrastructure facilitybeyond four yearsmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 80icsection 80ibkelvinator

Judgments citing Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO

Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…here a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.’’ 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ARJ Security Printers, 264 ITR 276 and Neo Pollypack Pvt Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, where a issue has been decided consistently in earlier AY.s in particular manner, the same view should prevail in subsequent years unless there is a material change in facts, meaning thereby, there must be mater…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…venue is not permitted to take a “U turn”, while denying the claimed deduction to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…venue is not permitted to take a “U turn”, while denying the claimed deduction to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…venue is not permitted to take a “U turn”, while denying the claimed deduction to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nue, no U-turn is permissible. The learned Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The ratio laid down in following cases supports the case of the assessee:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. CIT vs A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by assessee is

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION v (JM) (AM) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "G": NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER System Controls & Transformers Pvt. JCIT, Ltd., Range-2, CGO-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) And System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., JCIT, Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Range-2, CGO-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Hapur Road, Ghaziabad PAN: AACCS0354G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b y : Sh. SK Jain, Sr. DR Assessee by: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal, FCA O R DE R…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 194 of 484 (vi) CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (vii) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (viii) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (ix) DIT(E) vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del.) (x) Vesta Investment and Trading CO. (P) Limited v. CIT: 70 ITD 200 (Chd.) g) The aforesaid issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of Tribunal in the assessment years 2000-01; 2001-02; 2002-03, 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal has hel…

A.C.I.T. Circle 21(1), Mumbai vs. Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 4571/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PA…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3543/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PA…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PA…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN/GIR No. : AABPJ7629P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) & Shri Mohan Kapoorchand Vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai Jain C/4, Jeevan Sudha, S.D.Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PA…

Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…held in a number of cases including the apex court that the principle of consistency cannot be ignored. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgements: Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321(SC) CIT vs. A. K. J. Security Printers (2003) 264 ITR 276 H. A. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 618, 625 The Assessee prayed that the income in question be treated as business income. 10. The CIT(A) in the appeal for A.Y.2007-08, however, confirmed the order of AO by observing as follows :- 3.2 It is seen that an identical issue was involved in the appellant's group concern Oberoi Building and Investm…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…issue of consistency is concerned, we are of the view that in the absence of contrary material, consistency has to be maintained. For which we are fortified by following decisions:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

Satish Gujral vs. Addl CIT Range -32

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3397/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 80RSection 80U

…and no addition has been made on account of closing stock. The ld. AR has relied on the various decisions in support of his contention including the decision in 193 ITR 321 (SC), Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT 220 CTR 105 (SC), CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust 264 ITR 276 (Del), CIT vs. ARJ Security Printers 113 ITD 624 (Del - T.M.), DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Films 304 ITR (AT) 76 (Mum), IRB Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ITO. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) has held that once having held that the method of accounting of the appellant is that professional fee was recorded only as and when sale prices of paintings is rece…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…are brought on record by the Revenue, no U-turn is permissible. The learned Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The following cases support the case of the assessee : i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalypto Risk Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 32

…expected to follow the principle of consistency unless and until contrary material/facts are brought on record. On the issue of consistency, we are supported by following decisions:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Nailesh P. Dalal, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-21(1), Shri Nailesh Dalal, 6Th Floor, C-10, 5-6, Viram, 62, बनाम/ Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Hatkesh Society, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, N. S. Road No.8, Bandra (East) Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N Cross Objection No.49/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6169/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Nailesh Dalal, Acit-21(1), 5-6, Viram, 62, 6Th Floor, C-10, बनाम/ Hatkesh Society, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. N. S. Road No.8, Bandra Kurla Complex, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N

…udgments along with copies of the orders were furnished by the ld. A.R. of the appellant. ITA No.6169/Mum/2014 & 9 CO No.46/Mum/2014 Nailesh P Dalal a) CIT vs. Lagan Kala Upavan : (2003) 259 ITR 489(Del) Pg 70-71 b) CIT vs. A.R.J.Security Printers : (2003) 264 ITR 276 (Del) Pg72-73 c) DIT vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha : (2004) 236 ITR(Del) Pg 74-75 d) CIT vs. H.P.Cotton Textile Mills Ltd : IT Appeal No. 264 of 2007 Pg 76.77 e) DIT vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society IT Appeal No.28/2006 Pg 78-79 f) CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers: ITAppeal.No.755 of 2005 Pg 8041 g) CWT vs: Allied Finance (P) Ltd.…

Alka K. Upadhyaya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Alka K. Upadhaya, Acit, 6-Alka Building, 15Th Road, Circle-19(2), बनाम/ South Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Santacruz (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaapu0288Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…is concerned, we are of the view that in the absence of contrary material, consistency has to be maintained. For which we are fortified by following decisions:- 9 Alka K. Upadhyaya i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

Preeti G Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 11(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7557/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta, Income Tax Officer, 22, Bennett Villa, Ward-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 27, Wode House, Colaba, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400001 M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Adrpm3856E

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(4)

…essee, has to be accepted. Even otherwise, the judicial principle says that consistency has to be maintained. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…